+- HP Forums (https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Not HP Calculators (/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Not remotely HP Calculators (/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW (/thread-20489.html)
Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Matt Agajanian - 09-12-2023 02:29 AM
Hi all.
With Casio’s fx-991CW hitting the skids by Casio avoiding making it a sequel to the EX Classiwiz, do you consider the spreadsheet an acceptable alternative to the multi-statement : operator? Even though there are several other ways Casio dropped the ball, does the spreadsheet make up for at least some of the absences?
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Steve Simpkin - 09-12-2023 02:51 AM
(09-12-2023 02:29 AM)Matt Agajanian Wrote: Hi all.
With Casio’s fx-991CW hitting the skids by Casio avoiding making it a sequel to the EX Classiwiz, do you consider the spreadsheet an acceptable alternative to the multi-statement : operator? Even though there are several other ways Casio dropped the ball, does the spreadsheet make up for at least some of the absences?
While I don't care for its layout, design and lack of certain features, I suspect it will do fine in its intended role in the educational market. The vast number of people that will buy it probably won't miss these features and in some cases are only buying it for its model number.
"Casio - The NCEES approves all fx-115 and fx-991 models for use on its exams. Their policy states that “any Casio calculator must have ‘fx-115 ‘ or ‘fx-991’ in its model name.”"
https://fundamentalsofengineering.com/fe_approved_calculators.html
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Matt Agajanian - 09-12-2023 03:25 AM
(09-12-2023 02:51 AM)Steve Simpkin Wrote: While I don't care for its layout, design and lack of certain features, I suspect it will do fine in its intended role in the educational market. The vast number of people that will buy it probably won't miss these features and in some cases are only buying it for its model number.
"Casio - The NCEES approves all fx-115 and fx-991 models for use on its exams. Their policy states that “any Casio calculator must have ‘fx-115 ‘ or ‘fx-991’ in its model name.”"
https://fundamentalsofengineering.com/fe_approved_calculators.html
That certainly explains the 'pretty much' standardization of 991 and 115 model numbers.
Nice to see HP in the list (I guess that makes the glitches a non issue maybe because students wouldn’t encounter a situation that provokes the glitches.)
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Quadratica - 09-26-2023 08:48 AM
991 CW has a quirk which will catch out those who are familiar with the SD button on other CASIOs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSfuhZSh28
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Matt Agajanian - 09-26-2023 10:19 AM
(09-26-2023 08:48 AM)Quadratica Wrote: 991 CW has a quirk which will catch out those who are familiar with the SD button on other CASIOs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSfuhZSh28
As I’ve replied in a similar thread elsewhere, even though it seems odd to use the operation in the first place (but that’s just me), Casio should either release an upgraded model, or, better yet, discontinue the CW and release a 991EX Classwiz 2nd Edition instead.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Eddie W. Shore - 09-26-2023 01:51 PM
(09-12-2023 02:29 AM)Matt Agajanian Wrote: Hi all.
With Casio’s fx-991CW hitting the skids by Casio avoiding making it a sequel to the EX Classiwiz, do you consider the spreadsheet an acceptable alternative to the multi-statement : operator? Even though there are several other ways Casio dropped the ball, does the spreadsheet make up for at least some of the absences?
Don't expect full Excel: the spreadsheet has a size limit of 5 columns and 45 rows. Spreadsheet functions include Min, Max, Mean, and Sum. Math functions can be used. We also get absolute cell references ($). The ON key and turning the calculator off clears the spreadsheet.
The fx-991EX also has this spreadsheet, but the fx-991CW increases the memory from about 1700 bytes to 2380 bytes.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Matt Agajanian - 09-28-2023 12:04 AM
DING DING DING! I’m shocked I didn’t think of it before, the HP-27S!! I almost forgot it has something similar with its multi-statement function which coincidentally also uses the colon. I think that’s an equivalent, if not better solution to the CW missing the : operator.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Dave Britten - 08-28-2024 02:50 PM
Just kicking up this old thread with my anecdotal evidence to date:
I find that the spreadsheet is the main reason I tend to grab one of my CWs much more often than my EXes (I've got three of each). I'm very often working problems where I need to compare data and do calculations in a tabular format or otherwise see the values of multiple inputs and intermediate results (comparing pricing of different options, performance and size differences of various database configs, etc.), and the spreadsheet improvements on the CW make it far more pleasant for this task. In particular, it's faster and more responsive, the page-up/down keys make it quicker to get around and review lengthier data, data is retained if I go back to the main Calculate mode, and auto-power-off being set to 60 minutes means I don't have to worry that my work will disappear if I don't look at the calculator for a mere 10 minutes.
Conversely, I almost never use the multi-statement feature on the EX. There are still some things I occasionally do that are more convenient on an EX, like if I need to do a whole bunch of binary/hex conversions or unit conversions, but typically I reach for the CW by default (and when I do, there's a good chance I'll be doing something in the spreadsheet). If these calculators didn't have a spreadsheet mode, I would likely stick with the EX on account of the oft-repeated reasons involving use of menus.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - lrdheat - 08-29-2024 05:36 AM
Talking of items rarely used, I just noticed that the CW does not find Prime factors of a number like on the EX. Although I rarely use this feature, it is curious that it is not supported by the CW. The 9750 giii and the fx-CG 50 also do not find factors. Oddly, all of these calculators find LCM’s and GCM’s.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Dave Britten - 08-29-2024 03:02 PM
(08-29-2024 05:36 AM)lrdheat Wrote: Talking of items rarely used, I just noticed that the CW does not find Prime factors of a number like on the EX. Although I rarely use this feature, it is curious that it is not supported by the CW. The 9750 giii and the fx-CG 50 also do not find factors. Oddly, all of these calculators find LCM’s and GCM’s.
It does, though it's in the Format menu for some bizarre reason. Enter a number, hit EXE, then find Prime Factor in the Format menu.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - lrdheat - 08-29-2024 10:40 PM
Thanks for that!
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - lrdheat - 08-30-2024 05:14 AM
I noticed on the SwissMicros forum where a discussion on the WP 34S dealing with the accuracy of its integration of e^(cos(x) * sin(x)) from 0 to 100. The actual value is 106.49243824200123… on the 991EX, 9750 giii, and CG-50, the answer comes up as 106.4923778, incorrect beginning with the 4th decimal. Interestingly, the 991CW comes up with 106.4924382, and when I subtract 106.4924382 from this, I get the rest of what was in the result internally, namely 4.200123*10^-08 which is right on target! I imagine that this is due to the CW doing calculations internally to 10^-17 to as fine as 10^-22.
RE: Can the spreadsheet salvage the 991CW - Dave Britten - 08-30-2024 03:09 PM
(08-30-2024 05:14 AM)lrdheat Wrote: I noticed on the SwissMicros forum where a discussion on the WP 34S dealing with the accuracy of its integration of e^(cos(x) * sin(x)) from 0 to 100. The actual value is 106.49243824200123… on the 991EX, 9750 giii, and CG-50, the answer comes up as 106.4923778, incorrect beginning with the 4th decimal. Interestingly, the 991CW comes up with 106.4924382, and when I subtract 106.4924382 from this, I get the rest of what was in the result internally, namely 4.200123*10^-08 which is right on target! I imagine that this is due to the CW doing calculations internally to 10^-17 to as fine as 10^-22.
Despite Casio's missteps on the menu design, it is nevertheless quite impressive that they managed to not only increase the numerical precision considerably, but also make the calculator faster at the same time.